Gil v. Sanchez

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [DOC. NO. 8]

Hon.
Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge

On
April 5, 2017, Ruben Gil (“Plaintiff”), currently
incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility
(“RJD”) located in San Diego, California, and
proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint
(“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF
No. 1). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his Eighth
Amendment rights have been violated because Defendants are
sending him cellmates who are associates of “Security
threat Groups, ” thus putting Plaintiff's life at
“serious risk.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) On June 29,
2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
requiring all “defendants to cease their abnormal
behavior.” (ECF No. 8 at 3.) Plaintiff further alleges:

This is becoming an unsafe and continuing violation, where I
can get harm. I keep receiving cellies who are Security
threat Groups associates. [T]his is the fifth cellie I
received from R&R who are recruits and associates of the
Security threat Groups. I am being tormented by this
[sic] individuals every single day, and expose
[sic] to get harm. [Doc. No. 8 at 3.]

While
Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint, on June
29, 2017, at the Court's request, Defendants filed a
response to the motion for preliminary injunction. [Doc. No.
11.] For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion
for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order
is DENIED.

FACTUAL
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
filed a request for a preliminary injunction seeking
“prospective injunctive relief” so that
Defendants would “cease their abnormal behavior”
of assigning him cellmates who are “recruits and
associates” of unspecified “security threat
groups” because he feels “unsafe.” (ECF 8
at 3.) Plaintiff claims that he has had five such cellmates,
that he has been tormented by these cellmates every single
day, exposed to harm, and could be irreparably injured.
(Id.) Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing him
from being housed with inmates who are recruits or associates
of any and all security threat groups (id.), and
that the Court appoint “a monitor with authority to
observe Defendants['] conduct and thereby permit the
federal Court to oversee compliance with its continuing
order” (id. at 7). Finally, Plaintiff states
that he was attacked recently “at other
institutions.” (Id. at 6.) But he does not
allege that he was attacked at RJD.

Upon
arrival at an institution, an inmate is screened by a trained
custody supervisor for an appropriate housing assignment.
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3269(a). The custody
supervisor involved in the review and approval of an
inmate's housing assignment must evaluate all factors to
be considered when completing the initial housing review,
including, but not limited to, the inmate's personal
factors, length of sentence, enemies and victimization
history, criminal influence demonstrated over other inmates,
previous housing status, reasons for prior segregation,
history of all in-cell assaults and/or violence,
security-threat-group affiliation, involvement in race-based
incidents, nature of commitment offense, history with prior
cellmates, and Rules Violation Reports relating to being
found guilty of physical or sexual abuse, sodomy, or other
acts of force against a cellmate. Id.

In
response to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants have submitted
the declaration of D. Williams, a lieutenant at the facility
where Plaintiff has been housed since his arrival at the
prison. [Doc. No. 11-1.] In the declaration, D. Williams
provides the following information:

It is very common for inmates to seek single-cell housing
placement so that they do not have to share a cell with
another inmate. (Id. ¶ 4.) Inmates are expected
to double cell. (Id. ¶ 5.) Thus, RJD cannot
accommodate inmates' requests to be single celled unless
they meet certain very strict criteria, which is decided by a
committee action after evaluating various factors.
(Id.)

Under California Code of Regulations title 15, § 3269,
inmates are required to accept housing assignments as
directed by staff, are expected to double cell, and are not
entitled to single cell assignment, housing location of
choice, or to a cellmate of their choice.

While housed at a prior prison, Plaintiff was deemed to be an
inmate who needed to be housed on a sensitive-needs yard,
rather than a general-population yard. (Id. ¶
7.) Sensitive-needs-yard placement is for inmates who have
concerns with programing on a general population yard.
(Id. ¶ 8.) Sensitive-needs-yard inmates
participate together in large groups for such activities as
yard, chow, medical appointments, and pill line.
(Id. ¶ 9.) There is constant interaction among
inmates on a sensitive needs yard facility. (Id.)
Thus, a sensitive-needs-yard inmate cannot reasonably claim
that he cannot safely be placed in a cell with any
sensitive-needs-yard inmate, but that he can safely be on
the same facility with such inmates. (Id.) This
indicates that the inmate's goal is to obtain a single
cell, rather than any realistic safety concerns.
(Id.)

While housed at Kern Valley State Prison, Plaintiff was
allegedly the victim of an assault by a cellmate on or about
September 30, 2016. (Id. ¶ 10.) As a result,
Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation and
subsequently transferred out of that prison on October 12,
2016, due to self-expressed safety concerns. (Id.)

When Plaintiff arrived at RJD on October 13, 2016, a trained
custody supervisor reviewed the factors for housing placement
for Plaintiff and assigned him to Facility B, which is a
sensitive needs yard. (Id. &para; 11.) Considering
that Plaintiff is in close contact with inmates on Facility B
during yard, chow, and medical appointments or pill line (if
applicable), it is not reasonable for him to claim that he is
only in danger when he is in a cell with another inmate.
(Id.) It appears that by claiming he cannot cell
with any security-threat-group inmate, Plaintiff is trying to
eliminate possible cellmates so that he will effectively be
single-celled. (Id.) If the Courts ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.